Quote:
Originally Posted by codemonkey
Great result, Peter.
I'd personally argue that focal length is only part of the picture and it's the image scale that counts. For example, my piddly little 8" F4.5 works out to a mere 989mm when combined with the Paracorr... but that's still 0.5"/px with my 2.4 micron pixels. I believe a 16" Alluna combined with the 16803 works out to 0.56"/px while being in excess of 3m.
|
Many thanks. You know, I've long struggled with this and wondered why I get better resolution with when the numbers should pan out in a similar manner.
I suspect it is purely how the seeing affects the image at the focal plane. With a large aperture, the image is stable, but suffers from a high frequency, localised "ripple". Smaller apertures have less "ripple" but are also less stable. Both smear the image..but I have no idea how to determine what is the best FL+sampling rate for conditions on the night.
But another aspect is, at the same sampling rate, I get 4x the flux with a 16 than I would do with an 8 inch aperture. Signal certainly helps!
I have tried smaller, decidedly faster optics, but all they seem to give me is a wider field...which can be great....but the details are lost for reasons I frankly don't fully understand, given the seeing ultimately is the limiting factor.
I'd be very happy to receive some insight here...any takers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregbradley
I agree a spectacular M42. Makes me want to image it again.
Greg.
|
Yes! You have some amazing gear (and a dark site..you bugger!
) Image as much as you can, as tomorrow is not promised.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek Klepp
Peter a truly spectacular image .I do hope you print this and hang it up somewhere.
Derek
|
Thanks Derek, a good idea...if only we had more wall space
Quote:
Originally Posted by keller60
An amazing Messier 42! So many fine details.
Thanks for sharing!
|
Thanks and my pleasure.